Help me understand this promotion dilemma please

[Heldenkaiser]

It's all very clear ... General A can be promoted (Sumner in my case). General B (in my case, Hooker) will feel passed over, says the tooltip info, so I lose NM and VP, and General B loses seniority in addition.

Naturally, I'd prefer to wait until I can promote General B as well, so he won't feel slighted, and I get two ** leaders. But am I right in understanding this is exactly what I can't do? I either have to promote Sumner now, and thus lose VP/NM and make a promotion for Hooker less likely in addition; or I can not promote Sumner, but also lose the chance to promote him later, on the odd chance that I will be able to promote Hooker sooner or later.

Is this basically correct? And what happens if I don't promote Sumner? Does he stay a * for all his carreer, or will there be a second chance?

Thanks!

[Eoghammer]

I can advice you that promoting a general over another may prevent you to win as it is hard to reach the NM limit to win if you loose a dozen or more NM point by over promoting a general.
So it can be an option for greatest generals like grant and so on, but never promote all your general as soon as they are promotable.
when a general is promotable either with seniority 1 or 2 (not the main problem here as they will not cause NM loss) either by having gained more than 4 seniority since the beginning, you may promote him again after each probant victory...

[GShock]

Is this basically correct? And what happens if I don't promote Sumner? Does he stay a * for all his carreer, or will there be a second chance?

All correct. Sumner, if you get a penalty due to bypassing his seniority, will lose seniority. You can have another chance if you make him fight anyway...and of course when he's up for a promotion you must look for other same-ranking generals who could have more seniority than Sumner himself at that point in time or risk the penalty again

[Le Ricain]

It's all very clear ... General A can be promoted (Sumner in my case). General B (in my case, Hooker) will feel passed over, says the tooltip info, so I lose NM and VP, and General B loses seniority in addition.

Naturally, I'd prefer to wait until I can promote General B as well, so he won't feel slighted, and I get two ** leaders. But am I right in understanding this is exactly what I can't do? I either have to promote Sumner now, and thus lose VP/NM and make a promotion for Hooker less likely in addition; or I can not promote Sumner, but also lose the chance to promote him later, on the odd chance that I will be able to promote Hooker sooner or later.

Is this basically correct? And what happens if I don't promote Sumner? Does he stay a * for all his carreer, or will there be a second chance?

Thanks!

If you promote General A, General B will lose seniority. You will also lose VP's and in the case of higher ranked generals you will lose NM. I do not think that you would lose any NM's for promoting a 1* to 2*. General B will able to gain seniority through combat as per normal.

If you decline to promote General A, you will lose no VP's or NM's. However, General A will lose seniority and may not be eligible for promotion when you need him.

Sometimes this can be a tough decision.

[Coffee Sergeant]

Sumner gets autopromoted sometime around the end of 1861.

[Heldenkaiser]

Sumner gets autopromoted sometime around the end of 1861.

He better. Afterall he has to end up being a corps commander pretty soon.

This is good help for this case. So I'll leave him alone and spare me the anger of Hooker.

Generally, is promotion a tradeoff problem like this in most of the cases, or is the "normal" course of events that the guys who become eligible also have the seniority?

[Jim Pfleck]

Dierk,
in a case like this, I would only promote him if you really need him NOW to make a game changing move. Since we are in mid 61 I doubt that time is now. Otherwise, you get more ** at the end of the year.


The only time I pay the cost is if I MUST have a ** or, more likely, it is one of my excellent generals. Grant, Meade Sherman, Sheridan, those guys I promote as fast as I can. the 3-1-1 guys are not worth the cost.

[Heldenkaiser]

Thanks, Jim. I doubt Sumner is a "must have", and as for needing a **, I can still manage with [* Division] + * = force.

Good to hear there are more (and better) generals coming in further down the way.

[Jabberwock]

Generally, is promotion a tradeoff problem like this in most of the cases, or is the "normal" course of events that the guys who become eligible also have the seniority?

Generally, about 60% for me, it is a tradeoff problem . Some players deliberately try to put the generals at the top of the lists in situations where promotion will happen. Others just try to put the best eligible generals in those situations. Some try to put the worthless ones at the top of the list in risky situations. I think most just use whoever is appropriate for whatever job, and make the decision about promotion when faced with it.

I think Sumner's autopromote is in Feb '62, followed by Keyes in May. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

[anarchyintheuk]

I promote whenever they're eligible. If they earned it, they earned it. Politics (NM and VP) are just the cost of doing business.